De la politique étrangère américaine. Buffalo Bill contre Oussama ben Laden

There are more and more books about anti-Americanism in France, and it is true that in the emotional relationship between France and the United States, resentment and frustration on the part of weak for the strong have tended to generate criticisms in which denigration has long been the result more of ignorance than of arrogance. Today this anti-Americanism needs to be put in perspective, partly because the French (especially young people) have taken to travelling in the United States and therefore have less biased views than the older generation; but mainly because it is much too hasty to dismiss all critical analysis of American foreign policy as anti-American. Critical views are all the more legitimate given that there are commentators among both Democrats and Republicans in the United States who refuse to accept blindly the declarations of President George W. Bush in his crusade against the “axis of evil”, in particular against Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
Moreover, it is important to be aware of and understand the deep roots of the unilateralism that the current US Administration pursues so aggressively and, beyond its historical and cultural origins, the influence that the Jacksonian tradition has always exerted to varying degrees in the design and implementation of American foreign policy. Admittedly, if America seems imperialist, argues Jean-Jacques Salomon, this is primarily due to Europe’s inadequacies.
Since we cannot publish all of Walter Russell Mead’s text, owing to lack of space, he summarizes certain passages, and stresses how far the temptation to act unilaterally derives from values and practices that are deeply rooted in popular attitudes: the code of honour and the religious belief in America’s ability to win in any situation. The image of the cowboy, lone champion of good against Osama ben Laden or Saddam Hussein, reflects the whole mythology that inspired the western and that certain American commentators willingly invoke in criticizing the reservations and hesitations, if not the tendency to Munich-style appeasement, of their European allies.
This text is all the more revealing because it was originally published more than a year before the attacks of 11 September 2001. As with Pearl Harbor, it is not so much the actual number of people killed that explains the Jacksonian reaction in the United States, but rather the intense revulsion at the violation of the sanctuary. We are shown clearly a very different vision of the world to the one that prevailed in Washington during the Cold War, a vision in which the US can now manage without the support of allies, abandons its former alliances, challenges any international solidarity and intends to deal with terrorist opponents all by itself, defending only America’s own interests. In this crusade, W.R. Mead suggests, oil is a far more important factor than compassion for the victims of Saddam Hussein. The two sides of the Atlantic are definitely no longer singing from the same hymn sheet. But if this article had been written by a Frenchman, would it not have been criticized as yet another example of anti-Americanism?